Abstract
According to social information processing theory and conservation of resource theory, we examine whether and how authoritarian-benevolent leadership influences employees’ proactive work behaviors (PWBs) and unethical pro-organizational behaviors (UPBs). Study 1, a survey of 351 participants, revealed that authoritarian-benevolent leadership was positively related to LMX ambivalence, and that LMX ambivalence was negatively related to employees’ PWBs as well as UPBs. Further, the results showed that LMX ambivalence mediated the relationship between authoritarian-benevolent leadership and employees’ PWBs as well as UPBs. We also found that dialectical thinking negatively moderated the effect of authoritarian-benevolent leadership on employee LMX ambivalence. Study 2, using manipulations in the form of scenarios, examined the mediating effect of LMX ambivalence linking authoritarian-benevolent leadership with employees’ PWBs and UPBs. We discussed the theoretical and practical implications of our findings.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Date cleaning in Study 1: Based on prior studies (Rogelberg & Stanton, 2007), the data-cleaning procedures included missing value analysis and an assessment of normality of distribution. During cleaning, we removed cases from the dataset when a questionnaire contained significant missing values (i.e., more than 10% of the total scale items) with noticeable patterns. We also followed the recommendations of Chambers et al. (1983) in testing the usefulness of cases which we contributed significantly to the skewness and kurtosis-related characteristics of each item that may affect the normality of the survey data distribution. In addition, we performed the initial analysis by examining and excluding those conflicting responses to relevant scale items. Following prior studies (Roxas & Coetzer, 2012), we checked for non-response bias in our data collection by examining the characteristics (i.e., gender, age, educational level, and tenure) of early and late participants in each of the three survey waves (initial and two follow-ups). The non-response analysis showed that later respondents were more similar to non-respondents; thus, non-response bias in our sample is not deemed to be a major concern.
References
Ashforth, B. E., Rogers, K. M., Pratt, M. G., & Pradies, C. (2014). Ambivalence in organizations: a multilevel approach. Organization Science, 25(5), 1453–1478. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0909
Bai, Y., Harms, P., Han, G., & Cheng, W. (2015). Good and bad simultaneously? Leaders using dialectical thinking foster positive conflict and employee performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 26(3), 245–267. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-09-2014-0070
Bedi, A. (2020). A meta-analytic review of paternalistic leadership. Applied Psychology, 69(3), 960–1008. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12186
Belschak, F. D., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2010). Pro-self, prosocial, and pro-organizational foci of proactive behaviour: Differential antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 475–498. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X439208
Bhave, D. P., Kramer, A., & Glomb, T. M. (2010). Work-family conflict in work groups: Social information processing, support, and demographic dissimilarity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017885
Bonner, J. M., Greenbaum, R. L., & Quade, M. J. (2017). Employee unethical behavior to shame as an indicator of self-image threat and exemplification as a form of self-image protection: The exacerbating role of supervisor bottom-line mentality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(8), 1203–1221. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000222
Castille, C. M., Buckner, J. E., & Thoroughgood, C. N. (2018). Prosocial citizens without a moral compass? Examining the relationship between machiavellianism and unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(4), 919–930. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-016-3079-9
Chambers, J., Cleveland, W., Kleiner, B., & Tukey, P. (1983). Graphical methods for data analysis. Wadsworth.
Chen, H., Kwan, H. K., & Xin, J. (2021). Is behaving unethically for organizations a mixed blessing? A dual-pathway model for the work-to-family spillover effects of unethical pro-organizational behavior. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-021-09776-8
Chen, M., Chen, C. C., & Sheldon, O. J. (2016). Relaxing moral reasoning to win: How organizational identification relates to unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1082–1096. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000111
Chen, X.-P., Eberly, M. B., Chiang, T.-J., Farh, J.-L., & Cheng, B.-S. (2014). Affective trust in Chinese Leaders: Linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. Journal of Management, 40(3), 796–819. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410604
Cheng, B. S., Chou, L., & Farh, J. L. (2000). A triad model of paternalistic leadership: The constructs and measurement. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 14, 3–64.
Cheng, B.-S., Chou, L.-F., Wu, T.-Y., Huang, M.-P., & Farh, J.-L. (2004). Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7(1), 89–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-839X.2004.00137.X
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602
Dechawatanapaisal, D. (2020). Effects of leader-member exchange ambivalence on work attitudes: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Management Development, 40(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-07-2020-0233
DeMotta, Y., Chao, M. C., & Kramer, T. (2016). The effect of dialectical thinking on the integration of contradictory information. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(1), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCPS.2015.03.001
Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715–1759. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311415280
Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2000). A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In J. Li, A. S. Tsui, & E. Weldon (Eds.), Management and organizations in the Chinese context (pp. 84–127). Palgrave Macmillan.
Farh, J. L., Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., & Chu, X. P. (2006). Authority and benevolence: Employees’ responses to paternalistic leadership in China. In A. S. Tsui, Y. Bian, & L. Cheng (Eds.), China’s domestic private firms: Multidisciplinary perspectives on management and performance (pp. 230–260). Sharpe.
Fischer, T., Tian, A. W., Lee, A., & Hughes, D. J. (2021). Abusive supervision: A systematic review and fundamental rethink. The Leadership Quarterly, 32(6), 101540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101540
Fuller, B., Marler, L. E., Hester, K., & Otondo, R. F. (2015). Leader reactions to follower proactive behavior: Giving credit when credit is due. Human Relations, 68(6), 879–898. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726714548235
Gerlach, F., Heinigk, K., Rosing, K., & Zacher, H. (2020). Aligning leader behaviors with innovation requirements improves performance: An experimental study. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1332. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2020.01332
Gerlach, F., Rosing, K., & Zacher, H. (2021). Flexible adaptation of leader behavior. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 20(4), 198–206. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/A000274
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
Graton, A., & Ric, F. (2017). How guilt leads to reparation? Exploring the processes underlying the effects of guilt. Motivation and Emotion, 41(3), 343–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-017-9612-z
Gu, Q., Hempel, P. S., & Yu, M. (2020). Tough love and creativity: How authoritarian leadership tempered by benevolence or morality influences employee creativity. British Journal of Management, 31(2), 305–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12361
Halbesleben, J. R., Neveu, J. P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014). Getting to the “COR” understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334–1364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527130
Han, Y. (2020). Ambivalence in the Leader-Follower Relationship: Dispositional Antecedents and Effects on Work-Related Well-Being (Doctoral dissertation, Carleton University)
Han, G. H., & Bai, Y. (2020). Leaders can facilitate creativity: The moderating roles of leader dialectical thinking and LMX on employee creative self-efficacy and creativity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 35(5), 405–417. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-02-2019-0106
Hideg, I., & Ferris, D. L. (2017). Dialectical thinking and fairness-based perspectives of affirmative action. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(5), 782–801. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000207
Hideg, I., & Kleef, G, A. van. (2017). When expressions of fake emotions elicit negative reactions: The role of observers' dialectical thinking. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(8), 1196–1212. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2196
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50(3), 337–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00062
Hosain, M. S. (2019). Unethical pro-organisational behaviour: Concepts, motives and unintended consequences. Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation, 15(4), 133–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/2319510X19883084
Hou, N., & Peng, J. (2019). Authoritarian-benevolent leadership, active implementation and job performance: An investigation on the effectiveness of ambidextrous leadership in the Chinese context. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(01), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00117
Hou, N., Peng, J., Yin, K., & Yang, J. (2019). An investigation on the dark side of benevolent authoritarian and its boundary condition: An uncertainty management theory perspective. Nankai Business Review, 22(06), 77–87.
Lee, A., Thomas, G., Martin, R., & Guillaume, Y. (2019). Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) ambivalence and task performance: The cross-domain buffering role of social support. Journal of Management, 45(5), 1927–1957. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317741190
Lin, Y., Yang, M., Quade, M. J., & Chen, W. (2021). Is the bottom line reached? An exploration of supervisor bottom-line mentality, team performance avoidance goal orientation and team performance. Human Relations, 75(2), 349–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267211002917
Liu, H., Wang, F., & Yang, X. (2015). More dialectical thinking, less creativity? The relationship between dialectical thinking style and creative personality: The case of China. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0122926. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122926
Liu, Y., Xu, S., Zhang, H., & Zhu, J. (2021). Love and hate together: The influence of LMX ambivalence on employee proactive behavior. Foreign Economics & Management, 43(05), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.16538/j.cnki.fem.20201115.302
Nazir, S., Shafi, A., Asadullah, M. A., Qun, W., & Khadim, S. (2021). Linking paternalistic leadership to follower’s innovative work behavior: The influence of leader-member exchange and employee voice. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(4), 1354–1378. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-01-2020-0005
Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827–856. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310363732
Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36(3), 633–662. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308321554
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.636
Peng, J., Wang, Z., & Chen, X. (2019). Does self-serving leadership hinder team creativity? A moderated dual-path model. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(2), 419–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-018-3799-0
Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54(9), 741–754. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.9.741
Pingel, R., Fay, D., & Urbach, T. (2019). A resources perspective on when and how proactive work behaviour leads to employee withdrawal. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 92(2), 410–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12254
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408
Riegel, K. F. (1973). Dialectic operations: The final period of cognitive development. Human Development, 16(5), 346–370. https://doi.org/10.1159/000271287
Rofcanin, Y., Heras, M. L., & Bakker, A. B. (2017). Family supportive supervisor behaviors and organizational culture: Effects on work engagement and performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(2), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/OCP0000036
Rogelberg, S., & Stanton, J. (2007). Understanding and dealing with organisational survey non-response. Organizational Research Methods, 10(2), 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106294693
Rothman, N. B., Pratt, M. G., Rees, L., & Vogus, T. J. (2017). Understanding the dual nature of ambivalence: Why and when ambivalence leads to good and bad outcomes. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 33–72. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2014.0066
Roxas, B., & Coetzer, A. (2012). Institutional environment, managerial attitudes and environmental sustainability orientation of small firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(4), 461–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1211-z
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392563
Shaw, K.-H., Tang, N., & Liao, H.-Y. (2020). Authoritarian-benevolent leadership, moral disengagement, and follower unethical pro-organizational behavior: An investigation of the effects of ambidextrous leadership. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 590. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2020.00590
Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 345–372. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.07014
Umphress, E. E., & Bingham, J. B. (2011). When employees do bad things for good reasons: Examining unethical pro-organizational behaviors. Organization Science, 22(3), 621–640. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0559
Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Unethical behavior in the name of the company: The moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 769–779. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019214
Wang, G., Van Iddekinge, C. H., Zhang, L., & Bishoff, J. (2019). Meta-analytic and primary investigations of the role of followers in ratings of leadership behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(1), 70–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000345
Wang, Y., Liu, J., & Zhu, Y. (2018). Humble leadership, psychological safety, knowledge sharing, and follower creativity: A cross-level investigation. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1727. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01727
Wang, Z., Xing, L., Xu, H., & Hannah, S. (2021a). Not all followers socially learn from ethical leaders: The roles of followers’ moral identity and leader identification in the ethical leadership process. Journal of Business Ethics, 170(3), 449-469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04353-y
Wang, Z., Xu, H., & Song, M. (2021b). Exploring how and when ethical conflict impairs employee organizational commitment: A stress perspective investigation. Business Ethics: A European Review, 30(2), 172–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12324
Wei, J., Chen, Y., Zhang, Y., & Zhang, J. (2020). How does entrepreneurial self-efficacy influence innovation behavior? Exploring the mechanism of job satisfaction and Zhongyong thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 708. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2020.00708
Xia, Z., Yang, F., & Xu, Q. (2021). Authoritarian–benevolent Leadership and its Effect on Graduate Student Creativity: The Mediating Role of Intrinsic Motivation. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 55(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.431
Xiong, G., Huang, H., Ma, Y., Liang, C., & Wang, H. (2021). Abusive supervision and unethical pro-organizational behavior: The mediating role of status challenge and the moderating role of leader-member exchange. SAGE Open, 11(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211033560
Yama, H., & Zakaria, N. (2019). Explanations for cultural differences in thinking: Easterners’ dialectical thinking and Westerners’ linear thinking. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 31(4), 487–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2019.1626862
Yang, J., & Treadway, D. C. (2018). A social influence interpretation of workplace ostracism and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(4), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2912-x
Yao, Z., Luo, J., Fu, N., Zhang, X., & Wan, Q. (2021). Rational counterattack: The impact of workplace bullying on unethical pro-organizational and pro-family behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04918-w
Zacher, H., & Rosing, K. (2015). Ambidextrous leadership and team innovation. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(1), 54–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-11-2012-0141
Zhang, S., & Chen, L. (2020). Impact of work ethic on proactive work behaviors: The moderating roles of education and party affiliation in China. Current Psychology, 40, 3258-3269. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12144-020-00854-6
Zhang, Y., Huai, M., & Xie, Y. (2015). Paternalistic leadership and employee voice in China: A dual process model. Leadership Quarterly, 26(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LEAQUA.2014.01.002
Zhou, Q., Martinez, L. F., Ferreira, A. I., & Rodrigues, P. (2016). Supervisor support, role ambiguity and productivity associated with presenteeism: A longitudinal study. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3380–3387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.006
Funding
This work received support from National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 71871209, 7190107003)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000(5).
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all patients (employees) for being included in the study.
Research Involviong Human and Animal Participants
No animal studies were carried out by the authors for this study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix A
Appendix A
Experiment Manipulations
In the scenarios presented, we described a liner manager or direct supervisor named Mr. Li Wang. Participants were presented with a scenario in which they were asked to imagine they were a member of a fictional company (Da Dong) and have been working there for several years. The following scenario represents a description of this line manager or direct supervisor-Li Wang-with whom participants have been working starting from their first day on the job.
In the authoritarian leadership condition, participants were asked to imagine that they had experienced first-hand the following situation (scenario):
Li Wang is a line manager who focuses on absolute authority and strict control over employees. He requests employees’ unconditional and unquestioned obedience. He asks employees to obey his instructions completely, and punishes employees for not following his rules in accomplishing work tasks. He does not trust subordinates’ work competencies, seldom empowers employees, and determines all decisions in the organization whether they are important or not. He sets high performance standards and often emphasizes that his group must have the best performance of all the units in the organization.
In the benevolent leadership condition, the description of Li Wang describes his behaviors in ways consistent with the benevolent leadership behaviors outlined by Cheng et al. (2000). Participants in this condition read the following:
Li Wang is a line manager who expresses individualized, holistic concern for the need of employees’ personal well-being (both work and non-work related). He treats employees as family members and devotes all his energy to taking genuine care of employees. Beyond the work domain, he also shows concern for employees’ family members. He tries to understand why employees do not perform well and helps employees when they encounter arduous problems.
Manipulations of the authoritarian-benevolent leadership were based upon Shaw et al. (2020) and Hou and Peng’s (2019) conceptualization and measurement of authoritarian-benevolent leadership. The authoritarian-benevolent leadership condition includes references to authoritarian leadership behaviors and benevolent leadership behaviors simultaneously. Participants in the authoritarian-benevolent condition read the following:
Li Wang is a line manager who establishes the authority to supervise their employees and show benevolence to them. Li Wang is a line manager who focuses on absolute authority and strict control over employees. He requests employees’ unconditional and unquestioned obedience. He asks employees to obey his instructions completely, and punishes employees for not following his rules in accomplishing work tasks. He does not trust subordinates’ work competencies, seldom empower employees, and determines all decisions in the organization whether they are important or not. He sets high performance standards and often emphasizes that his group must have the best performance of all the units in the organization.
In addition, Li Wang is a line manager who expresses individualized, holistic concern for the need of employees’ personal well-being (both work and non-work related). He treats employees as family members and devotes all his energy to taking genuine care of employees. Beyond the work domain, he also shows concern for employees’ family members. He tries to understand why employees do not perform well and helps employees when they encounter arduous problems. He selects and coordinates his leadership behaviors according to the requirements of specific situations.
In the no leadership condition, the description of Li Wang does not include any references to the authoritarian leadership behaviors or the benevolent leadership behaviors outlined by Cheng et al. (2000). In addition, based on the manipulation of no leadership condition (Gerlach et al., 2020, 2021), and the low level of authoritarian-benevolent leadership stated in prior studies (Shaw et al., 2020; Xia et al., 2021), participants in this condition read the following:
Li Wang is a line manager who provides little or no guidance and care at the same time. He never exercises strict discipline over employees and rarely set standards for their performance. He does not define the job description and work methods and not provide counseling. Thus employees should decide for themselves how to solve work tasks. He also does not pay attention to his employees inside or outside the workplace. He shows indifference to employees’ requests and difficulties. In one word, under the leadership of Li Wang, employees are in a laissez-faire work environment which lacks supervision and warmth.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, L., Weng, Q. Authoritarian-Benevolent Leadership and Employee Behaviors: An Examination of the Role of LMX Ambivalence. J Bus Ethics 186, 425–443 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05225-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05225-8